| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Needs a Code Pope | |
|
||
| Time: 00:46 EST/05:46 GMT | News Source: ABC News | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft needs to back up and re-fork its OS development from Windows 2000 Professional or even Windows NT 4.0. Then it needs to find a "pope" who can understand the code base. First, the coders seem to assume that Windows 2000 Professional is the best version of the system ever. There are a lot of reasons for this assumption, not the least of which is that you can do multiple installs without having to call Microsoft Central and explain why. It's also not the most visually attractive version of Windows, and that has a certain appeal to the pizza-eating slobs who tend to be heavily into coding. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:42:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/25/2006 12:53:39 AM |
|
The really big question I have for Dvorak is: Illegal or prescription? Which are you on? This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 00:54. |
| #2 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 7/25/2006 1:52:01 AM |
|
My word, I don't even know where to begin with this. Dvorak has to be the King of Specious arguments.
Windows 2000 Professional is the best version of the system ever.... you can do multiple installs without having to call Microsoft Central and explain why. Do any of these "tech" reporters use computers in more than just an ad-hoc fashion or for writing these articles? How does Dvorak continue to write when the articles show such an obvious lack of both experience and research. Whether you need to "call Microsoft Central" is determined by your product key. Activation is something home users--or journalists receiving consumer versions for review or personal use--might experience, but that's not the way it works in the business world. It's also not the most visually attractive version of Windows And therefore the Windows codebase should be forked from there? This should go down in a wiki next to "non sequitur." Oh, and coders don't care about visual appeal. At all. In fact, they're against it, and so is Windows 2000. Therefore, fork from 2000. QED. the code is so sloppy and poorly documented that it would be subject to extreme ridicule. Seriously, it probably is. Speculation is always useful in making a point. In fact, devote a lengthy paragraph to it. Linux has a small group of cardinals with a pope—Linus Torvalds—so the model does work. Thus, we finally get to the root cause that brought about this meandering, nonsensical rant--that Windows needs to take a cue from Linux; specifically, that Windows needs a dictator like Linux has with Linus. This point is as flawed as the rest of the article. If the article had been talking about the Windows kernel the whole time, then it would start to make at least some sense. But this is where, once again, the superficial, pop-culturish knowledge of OSes of most of Dvorak's ilk is revealed. If you want a pope of the Windows kernel, look to Cutler (or maybe Russinovich, now that he's on board--among others). If he thinks "Windows" needs a pope, then he must also think that "Linux"--or rather, a body that oversees and dictates the output of every piece, in whole and in part, of every Linux distribution and compilation ever written to media--needs its own pope as well. I apologize for the sarcasm, but this type of writing just makes me ill. Dvorak could have made many logical points for project management/development by edict from a single person or body, but this seriously makes me wonder (again) how he can be a writer for PC Mag. They need a Dvorakectomy. PC Mag "had better do it." |
| #3 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 7/26/2006 12:47:48 AM |
|
not that there's a soul left that hasnt seen this, but anyway...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg mac users - played for fools, 10 years running. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 00:49. |
| #4 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 7/26/2006 10:26:57 AM |
|
...coders seem to assume that Windows 2000 Professional is the best version of the system ever.
QFT |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:42:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
